Board member Holly moves to table Title IX policy; trustees cite liability and legal uncertainty

The Forest Hills Public Schools board spent the bulk of its Aug. 19 meeting debating whether to adopt revised Title IX–related board policies before federal court cases were settled. The discussion followed a request from Board member Holly to add a topic-specific public-comment period on the board’s proposed policy language.

Holly, a trustee, argued the proposed policy “lowers the harassment standard” and said the district should pause to avoid unintended consequences for students, staff and parental rights. She told colleagues: "I motion that we table, series 3,000, specifically 3,115 a, all of the components that are within Title IX's new recommended, regulations from the Department of Education." Holly said the changes — including language that replaces a “severe, pervasive and objectively offensive” standard with a “subjectively and objectively … so severe or pervasive” test and added definitions for gender identity and expression — could expand the number of harassment complaints and carry constitutional concerns.

Superintendent Ben Kirby and other trustees pushed back, saying the district faces legal and financial exposure if it fails to adopt policies reflecting the new guidance. Kirby noted that not following federal guidance could create liability and jeopardize federal funds tied to Title programs. He also told the board the district already has state-level protections under the Elliot Larson Civil Rights Act and that the federal changes add expectations the district must address for compliance and investigations.

After extended trustee questions and public comment, Holly moved to table the policy and asked for outside legal and technical clarification. The board conducted a roll-call sequence; the transcript records the chair declaring, “That passes.” The transcript also records the chair saying the policy will nevertheless be brought forward for vote at the same meeting’s consent process (the transcript’s sequence is ambiguous about whether and how that immediate follow-up occurred). The meeting then proceeded to public comment, with many community speakers urging the board to pause implementation pending court rulings.

Why it matters: The policy debate touches on student safety, board liability and how the district will investigate and respond to discrimination claims. Community speakers warned of increased complaints and legal risk; administrators warned that failing to implement updates could create federal compliance problems.

What’s next: The board recorded a motion to table and called for additional information. Trustees asked the superintendent to gather clarifying legal advice and definitions before final action.